"Peirce never put the roman numbers on his
original MS." ! I am
very happy reading this assertion of De Tienne, an very good expert of the MS.
Personally I was always astonashed that Peirce note the classes of signs with ordinals because
nothing cannot justify it since the natural order of the classes is the non
linear order of the 10-lattice.
In
conclude, sometimes, the editors can be "generators of mistakes"
instead of "generators of lattices"...
Robert Marty
http://robert.marty.perso.cegetel.net/
--------Message d'origine-----
De : VinXcius Romanini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : samedi 17 juin 2006 01:51
À : Peirce Discussion Forum
Objet : [peirce-l] Re: representing the ten classes of signs (corrected)Dear Joe, listThe matter of the roman ordering numbers have always puzzled me. I remember once asking De Tienne about it at the PEP and he told me that Peirce never put the roman numbers on his original MS. They are just another work of Hartshorne and Weiss to make their point about how the classes of signs should be ordered in their own view. I have never seen the original Syllabus MS but now that you have mentioned again the "roman numbering problem", would like to know if you or anyone can ascertain if Peirce did put these numbers or not.Best,Vinicius
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
